More Evidence Squatting Legal in MoCo

[Anonymous]

My friend rented her basement to someone. He stopped paying rent. When she had enough of the nonsense she gathered all his stuff, threw it outside, and changed the lock on the basement entrance. End of story.

I guess it's not always that simple, but it certainly worked for her. She didn't bother with niceties, such as a polite letter telling him to get out. That was 25 years ago before the entire area turned progressive with legal requirements adding a layer to what used to be a no-nonsense approach to these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why there are “squatters rights”? Or for that matter why there should be tenant’s rights if tenants refuse to pay their rent? I don’t mean tenant’s rights with regards to protecting tenants from abuse, fraud, inhabitable conditions, etc.; I mean why are there rights when tenants simply refuse to pay their rent.

A lot of these things have very long historical antecedents. Imagine you’re a person in 16th century Europe and come upon an abandoned house. So you move in and fix it up. No one ever comes around to tell you it’s theirs and the original owner maybe died of plague or killed in battle or whatever. That’s the concept behind eminent domain and it makes a lot of sense.

It looks to me like the blame here rests mostly on the bank which is an absentee landlord. If the squatter is causing issues, the neighbors should threaten to sue the bank for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain/secure th property.

This has absolutely nothing to do with eminent domain, which is the sovereign's power to take private land for public use, upon payment of fair compensation.

Perhaps you are thinking of adverse possession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens in every jurisdiction that has laws to protect legitimate tenants from predatory landlords. There also needs to be a legal recourse against predatory tenants! Surely it can't be that complicated... politicians lack the incentive to work at it, I suppose.

I'm from a European country and was just watching a news segment about a similar situation in my home country.

Blue areas tend to have very pro squatter policies

Virginia is moving that way by recently making it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants who don't pay rent or who violate the terms of their leases.

What an absolutely idiotic statement. Blue ares have pro tenant policies and laws, which are misused and exploited by squatters.

Should the laws be revised to close loopholes squatters are exploiting? Absolutely, yes.

Do any jurisdictions, anywhere, have policies that affirmatively support squatters? Obviously not. If you claim there are, please provide a link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is paying the tax bill? That's the owner.

The squatter is not claiming ownership. They are claiming tenancy rights.

Can they show anyone a signed contract between the owner and themselves?

Some of the more creative (/s) squatters have forged signed contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My friend rented her basement to someone. He stopped paying rent. When she had enough of the nonsense she gathered all his stuff, threw it outside, and changed the lock on the basement entrance. End of story.

I guess it's not always that simple, but it certainly worked for her. She didn't bother with niceties, such as a polite letter telling him to get out. That was 25 years ago before the entire area turned progressive with legal requirements adding a layer to what used to be a no-nonsense approach to these things.

I think part of the issue here is the house is bank owned and they don’t see particularly aggressive about getting this person out.

[Anonymous]

everytime I argue about property tax being theft, so random, says what about the roads, police, schools...etc

whats the point of paying property taxes in Maryland when you can literally steal someones home and the police cant do anything about it.

i'd rather have my tax money back and hire my own security

[Anonymous]

What an absolutely idiotic statement. Blue areas have pro tenant policies and laws, which are misused and exploited by squatters.

Should the laws be revised to close loopholes squatters are exploiting? Absolutely, yes.

Do any jurisdictions, anywhere, have policies that affirmatively support squatters? Obviously not. If you claim there are, please provide a link.

Or maybe it is idiotic to think that the fact that many tenant friendly policies and laws are also squatter friendly is a loophole and not a feature. Many so-called tenant laws were initiated by activists who think that private property is evil, that we all live on a stolen land, and similar marxist/anarchist nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Just get some security cameras so that you can monitor your house remotely. If you’re consistently away for long periods of time, you should already have done this. The MAGA hysteria in this thread is funny but not really generalizable beyond the derelict bank that owns this particular property.

[Anonymous]

You get what you vote for!

Liberal paradise!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just get some security cameras so that you can monitor your house remotely. If you’re consistently away for long periods of time, you should already have done this. The MAGA hysteria in this thread is funny but not really generalizable beyond the derelict bank that owns this particular property.

This. If a bank leaves a house vacant and unobserved for months, this is how you get squatters.

If you have enough money to own a house, and go away for thirty days +, you shout have enough money to hire a house sitter or install cameras.

Most MAGAs posting on this thread are experiencing neither.

[Anonymous]

Apparently it’s emptied and locked now?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUn7gGrjo8Q/?igsh=MTVhNDF6eHlvZmZlcg==

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for!

Liberal paradise!!!!

Oh, lookie here — nearly every states has squatter’s rights, including MAGA paradise:

https://www.azibo.com/blog/which-states-have-squatters-rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently it’s emptied and locked now?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUn7gGrjo8Q/?igsh=MTVhNDF6eHlvZmZlcg==

That right there is an official eviction by the sheriff. Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens in every jurisdiction that has laws to protect legitimate tenants from predatory landlords. There also needs to be a legal recourse against predatory tenants! Surely it can't be that complicated... politicians lack the incentive to work at it, I suppose.

I'm from a European country and was just watching a news segment about a similar situation in my home country.

Blue areas tend to have very pro squatter policies

Virginia is moving that way by recently making it more difficult for landlords to evict tenants who don't pay rent or who violate the terms of their leases.

Nearly every state a squatter’s rights and there is really no difference between red and blue states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is crazy. If one has never had a contract with the owner and has never made a payment to the owner, one should not have any rights over a property. The fact that someone can claim rights is insane.

Unfortunately blue local jurisdictions and courts have become far leftified. Far left people view the world as oppressors versus oppressed.

Landlords are oppressors because they have capital and charge rent for what they view as a “basic human right” — even though the grocery store charges for food, and the utility company charges for water, somehow landlords are extra oppressive.

According to far left people, criminals are oppressed because everyone is born as a blank slate, so if someone commits crimes it’s because of poverty. What causes poverty according to them? Again, according to blank slate theory, it has to be a systemic issue and not their personality or other traits, so it’s ideas like the imperfections of capitalism, systemic racism, etc.

Hope this helps.

STFU. The court in this case found the defendants guilty.